Preserved Versus Preservative-Free Latanoprost for the Treatment of Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension: A Post Hoc Pooled Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare the tolerability and efficacy of a preservative-containing latanoprost (PCL) to a preservative-free formulation of latanoprost (PFL) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. A pooled analysis was performed of data from five published studies. The primary outcome was tolerability as evaluated by the severity of hyperemia. The secondary objectives were patient tolerance based on a composite ocular surface disease (OSD) score arising from ocular signs and symptoms, patient and investigator satisfaction, and a comparison of IOP-lowering efficacy. There were three randomized controlled trials and two observational studies included in the analysis. Conjunctival hyperemia improved significantly in 25.6% (388) of patients switched to the PFL group versus 11.7% (117) of patients switched to the PCL group (p < 0.001). PFL was two times superior to PCL in reducing ocular hyperemia (odds ratio = 1.96; p < 0.001). The mean OSD composite score decreased by 32.2% in patients switched to the PFL group and 14.1% in the PCL group (p < 0.001). At 3 months, the mean IOP was similar between groups (p = 0.312). This post hoc pooled analysis confirmed the findings of the individual studies that PFL is as efficacious at reducing IOP as PCL but better tolerated. After switching to PFL, there was twice the improvement in the OSD composite score. PFL was twice as effective at reducing ocular hyperemia and other ocular signs. These findings suggest that PFL has features that may improve patient compliance, thereby potentially improving the IOP-lowering efficacy on a long-term basis. Preservatives in eye drops for glaucoma can cause side effects such as stinging and eye redness. These side effects can cause some patients to reduce the frequency of the drops as prescribed or stop using the drops. One of the most common drops for glaucoma is latanoprost. This study evaluated whether a preservative-free latanoprost (PFL) is as effective as preservative-containing latanoprost (PCL) for reducing eye pressure and whether PFL is better tolerated in patients with glaucoma. The results of the study indicated that PFL was as effective as PCL for reducing eye pressure. The results also indicated PFL was much better at reducing the side effects related to PCL. For example PFL reduces eye redness up to twofold compared to PCL. By reducing the side effects associated with PCL patients may continue to take their glaucoma drops as directed and thereby reduce the risk of vision loss from glaucoma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".